What's in a Name?

The social constructionist view states that we basically give the world meaning through images, speech, and writing. Therefore these tools (writing, speech, images) construct our personalized perspective of the world. But often I have heard, in the Theatre Department at least, that these representations fall short. A word usually fails to capture the essence or the experience of what it is actually defining. If I'm lamenting the loss of my cat, is that a misnomer? Am I really lamenting? Do I even know what true lamentation is? What is truth? Opps! I've waddled waist deep into deadly philosophical quicksand, like studying the color grue! Furthermore, even the act of attempting to define an experience strips it of its singularity and universality.

Of course, the other viewpoint is that these representations mirror the world as is. I would agree with that statement if each mirror were somehow individually warped, like for example in a fun house. A fun house mirror still retains its power to reflect, but the images are uniquely distorted, elongated, or morphed. Basically everyone has a different perspective. No two lives are exactly the same. Although you can imagine stepping outside of your skin and walking in someone else’s moccasins, the physical act of doing so is an impossibility. That's where representation steps in.

Representation is our desperate attempt to share (or communicate) our worldview. Sometimes we even share and communicate with no intended recipient in mind, like a diary or unviewed blog. Or, you could say the recipient is yourself. Anyway, this idea of representation slips into the next topic nicely, which is photographic truth. Representations can never be a hundred percent objective. Never. Because our perception of reality is a convenient veil created by our monkey brains to protect us from the universe. And also, everything is subject to your own subjectivity, or viewpoint.

Putting my "viewpoint" theory aside, which I have exhausted, I agree with Barthes' ideas of denotative and connotative meaning. Frankly, I love connoting! I try to do it frequently and with much gusto as humanly possible. I'm not always right, and I'm rarely original. My lack of originality is due to Barthes' other concept, the myth. Society has forced fed me since birth to use these myths subconsciously when viewing images. Looking at a picture with an outsider's perspective is a strenuous workout for the brain. Ideologies also play a pivotal role in inhibiting objective analysis. Why even this blog entry is subject to my Western ideals of individuality and freedom, which seem almost congenital. Completely freeing ourselves from myths and ideologies appears unlikely. Therefore, embrace your restraints. Delve into semiotics. Examine the multiple gilded frames of a single image: social, cultural, and historical.